Do you have evidence to back that up? Seems to me that organisations with obedient members usually outperform those whose members question every decision; the exception being possibly those organisation who depend on their (non-leader) members being creative (e.g. software development), but those are a pretty recent development.
the exception being possibly those organisation who depend on their (non-leader) members being creative (e.g. software development), but those are a pretty recent development.
No, they are not a pretty recent development at all. The historical common-case is leaders taking credit for the good thinking of their underlings.
And, frankly, your underestimation of the necessary intelligent thought to run most organizations is kinda… ugh.
No, they are not a pretty recent development at all. The historical common-case is leaders taking credit for the good thinking of their underlings.
I agree that there are (probably a lot of) cases where creative thinking from rank-and-file members helps the organization as a whole; however my claim is that obedience also helps the organisation in other ways (coordinated action, less time spent on discussion, less changes of direction), and cases where the first effect is stronger than the second are rare until recently.
i.e. (content warning: speculation and simplification!) you may have had medieval construction companies/guilds where low-level workers were told to Just Obey Or Else, and when they had good ideas supervisors took credit, but it’s likely that if you had switched there organization to a more “democratic” one like (some) modern organisations, the organization as a whole would have performed less well.
I don’t have any in-depth knowledge of the history of organization, I just think that “The vast majority of all historical incidences of blind obedience have ended up being Bad Ideas” is a nice-sounding slogan but not historically true.
And, frankly, your underestimation of the necessary intelligent thought to run most organizations is kinda… ugh.
I specifically referred to non-leader members, i.e. rank-and-file. Which is, like, the opposite of what you seem to be reading into my comment.
I specifically referred to non-leader members, i.e. rank-and-file. Which is, like, the opposite of what you seem to be reading into my comment.
No, I was referring to the rank-and-file as well.
I don’t have any in-depth knowledge of the history of organization,
Then we should ask someone who does.
it’s likely that if you had switched there organization to a more “democratic” one like (some) modern organisations, the organization as a whole would have performed less well.
Then why did we switch, and why are our organizations more efficient in correlation with being more democratic?
Because the correct trade-off between ability to raise expansion capital via selling stock and maintaining worker control has not yet been achieved. Most current worker coops, for instance, do not have any structure for selling nonvoting stock, so they face a lot of difficulty in raising capital to expand.
so they face a lot of difficulty in raising capital to expand.
How would a worker controlled coop expand? Would the new workers be given the same voting rights as the original workers? If so you have to ensure that the new workers have the same vision for how the coop should be run. Also, what do you do if market conditions require a contraction?
Do you have evidence to back that up? Seems to me that organisations with obedient members usually outperform those whose members question every decision; the exception being possibly those organisation who depend on their (non-leader) members being creative (e.g. software development), but those are a pretty recent development.
No, they are not a pretty recent development at all. The historical common-case is leaders taking credit for the good thinking of their underlings.
And, frankly, your underestimation of the necessary intelligent thought to run most organizations is kinda… ugh.
I agree that there are (probably a lot of) cases where creative thinking from rank-and-file members helps the organization as a whole; however my claim is that obedience also helps the organisation in other ways (coordinated action, less time spent on discussion, less changes of direction), and cases where the first effect is stronger than the second are rare until recently.
i.e. (content warning: speculation and simplification!) you may have had medieval construction companies/guilds where low-level workers were told to Just Obey Or Else, and when they had good ideas supervisors took credit, but it’s likely that if you had switched there organization to a more “democratic” one like (some) modern organisations, the organization as a whole would have performed less well.
I don’t have any in-depth knowledge of the history of organization, I just think that “The vast majority of all historical incidences of blind obedience have ended up being Bad Ideas” is a nice-sounding slogan but not historically true.
I specifically referred to non-leader members, i.e. rank-and-file. Which is, like, the opposite of what you seem to be reading into my comment.
No, I was referring to the rank-and-file as well.
Then we should ask someone who does.
Then why did we switch, and why are our organizations more efficient in correlation with being more democratic?
More education and literacy; a more complex world (required paperwork for doing anything...); more knowledge work.
Truth of claim not in evidence.
Claim at least partially in evidence. Methinks your prior doth protest too much.
Then why haven’t worker cooperatives replaced corporations as the main economic form?
Because the correct trade-off between ability to raise expansion capital via selling stock and maintaining worker control has not yet been achieved. Most current worker coops, for instance, do not have any structure for selling nonvoting stock, so they face a lot of difficulty in raising capital to expand.
How will you recognize the “correct trade-off”?
How would a worker controlled coop expand? Would the new workers be given the same voting rights as the original workers? If so you have to ensure that the new workers have the same vision for how the coop should be run. Also, what do you do if market conditions require a contraction?
These questions are all answered in the existing literature.
What about Honda?